5 ms·

Baseline power based on batteries is not practical yet and it won't be for a while. Way too expensive and resource intensive.

Retric 7y ago
Solar + batteries averaged over the 24 hour demand curve are cheaper than current generation nuclear power plant operating 24/7/365. The issue is turning off nuclear power plants don’t significantly reduce costs so their competing head to head vs x hours @ 2c/kWh + y hours @ ~20c/kWh. At first glance it seems to slightly favor nuclear when it can operate 24/7, but nuclear power plants have a very long lifecycle 40+ years and projected battery costs for future replacements are lower than today’s values. Worse nuclear has a much longer lead time so you already need to compare battery prices ~5 years from now when you’re looking at building a new nuclear power plant. PS: Note grid batteries are significantly cheaper when they can share inverters with solar generation and be directly charged via DC. Standalone prices are higher. Also, fast discharge peaking power reduces battery lifetimes over longer discharge nighttime useage.
- hokkos 7y ago
  In some countries maybe but in a lot of others there are days with almost no sun, batteries are not for seasonal storage.
  - e12e 7y ago
    I don't know about a lot. I live in Tromsø, Norway (69N). There aren't many populated areas this far north. And even here, solar is pretty decent for a lot of uses (Esp in combination with insulation to reduce the need for heating). We also have quite a lot of precipitation - but again, solar isn't hopeless even here. As for seasonal storage, I suspect some kind of kinetic/potential energy storage might be better than batteries? Like lifting a weight, or pumping a liquid up hill/up a tower?
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Over 99% of Norway's electricity is from hydroelectric plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway
      - e12e 7y ago
        Yes, sure. It's hard to compete with already built hydro. So there's little incentive to move from cheap hydro. But for those that want, it's possible. And feasible. But with a solid grid built out - it's mostly as a supplement.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- koheripbal 7y ago
  The important flaw in your argument is the use of the word average. A grid cannot make use of average power generation. It needs consistent power generation. ...and storage needed to make that happen is orders of magnitude higher than what's being factored in here.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Batteries inherently allow for peaking power, it’s nuclear that has issues with fluctuations in demand. So, by average I mean how much are you able to use directly vs how much do you need to store in batteries. To be more clear only using solar with battery backup you can provide 24/7 power that covers demand but at lower costs per kWh than current nuclear numbers operating 24/7 and vastly lower than trying to reach 100% nuclear generation in almost every country.
    - stjohnswarts 7y ago
      Your argument is completely shot down by the mere fact that 75% of France's power is provided by nuclear energy.
      - Retric 7y ago
        Nope, ~60% of France’s power is provided by nuclear while 71.6% of it’s power production is nuclear. They export 86.3 TWh almost entirely nuclear power and import 26.1 TWh almost entirely non nuclear power (2016). Even then their nuclear capacity factor is 77% where it’s generally 90+% in the US because frequently nobody want’s to import electricity from France. So, France’s high percentage of nuclear power results roughly 17% higher costs per kWh for nuclear power due to oversupply. Or more depending on what it exports at. Further, the more you increase nuclear capacity globally, the less anyone is going to be importing it at night and weekends when everyone is over supplied.

Retric 7y ago

Solar + batteries averaged over the 24 hour demand curve are cheaper than current generation nuclear power plant operating 24/7/365. The issue is turning off nuclear power plants don’t significantly reduce costs so their competing head to head vs x hours @ 2c/kWh + y hours @ ~20c/kWh. At first glance it seems to slightly favor nuclear when it can operate 24/7, but nuclear power plants have a very long lifecycle 40+ years and projected battery costs for future replacements are lower than today’s values. Worse nuclear has a much longer lead time so you already need to compare battery prices ~5 years from now when you’re looking at building a new nuclear power plant. PS: Note grid batteries are significantly cheaper when they can share inverters with solar generation and be directly charged via DC. Standalone prices are higher. Also, fast discharge peaking power reduces battery lifetimes over longer discharge nighttime useage.

hokkos 7y ago
In some countries maybe but in a lot of others there are days with almost no sun, batteries are not for seasonal storage.
- e12e 7y ago
  I don't know about a lot. I live in Tromsø, Norway (69N). There aren't many populated areas this far north. And even here, solar is pretty decent for a lot of uses (Esp in combination with insulation to reduce the need for heating). We also have quite a lot of precipitation - but again, solar isn't hopeless even here. As for seasonal storage, I suspect some kind of kinetic/potential energy storage might be better than batteries? Like lifting a weight, or pumping a liquid up hill/up a tower?
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Over 99% of Norway's electricity is from hydroelectric plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway
    - e12e 7y ago
      Yes, sure. It's hard to compete with already built hydro. So there's little incentive to move from cheap hydro. But for those that want, it's possible. And feasible. But with a solid grid built out - it's mostly as a supplement.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
koheripbal 7y ago
The important flaw in your argument is the use of the word average. A grid cannot make use of average power generation. It needs consistent power generation. ...and storage needed to make that happen is orders of magnitude higher than what's being factored in here.
- Retric 7y ago
  Batteries inherently allow for peaking power, it’s nuclear that has issues with fluctuations in demand. So, by average I mean how much are you able to use directly vs how much do you need to store in batteries. To be more clear only using solar with battery backup you can provide 24/7 power that covers demand but at lower costs per kWh than current nuclear numbers operating 24/7 and vastly lower than trying to reach 100% nuclear generation in almost every country.
  - stjohnswarts 7y ago
    Your argument is completely shot down by the mere fact that 75% of France's power is provided by nuclear energy.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Nope, ~60% of France’s power is provided by nuclear while 71.6% of it’s power production is nuclear. They export 86.3 TWh almost entirely nuclear power and import 26.1 TWh almost entirely non nuclear power (2016). Even then their nuclear capacity factor is 77% where it’s generally 90+% in the US because frequently nobody want’s to import electricity from France. So, France’s high percentage of nuclear power results roughly 17% higher costs per kWh for nuclear power due to oversupply. Or more depending on what it exports at. Further, the more you increase nuclear capacity globally, the less anyone is going to be importing it at night and weekends when everyone is over supplied.